^{page 82 note 1} Talbert, C. H., ‘Again: Paul's Visits to Jerusalem’, Nov. T. IX (1967), 26–40Google Scholar. The seven positions are as follows: (1) Gal. ii = Acts xv; (2) Gal. ii = Acts xi; (3) Gal. ii = Acts xi = Acts xv; (4) Gal. ii = Acts xviii; (5) Gal. ii = Acts xv. 1–4, 12; (6) Gal. ii = Acts xi+Acts xv; (7) Gal. ii is a visit not mentioned in Acts (Ibid. p. 26 n. 3). Talbert's own view is nearest to the second of these.

^{page 82 note 2} Ramsay's own opinion of Luke (as we may, without prejudice, style the author of Acts) as historian increased constantly during the period of his researches in Asia Minor, and he discovered that, where verifiable, Luke's account was vindicated. See, for example, St Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (London, 1895)Google Scholar, ch. 1 et passim. We need not necessarily concur with Ramsay's identification of Luke with the beloved physician and companion of Paul to acknowledge the significance of the evidence he presents. Cf. also Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), especially p. 189Google Scholar, for a vindication of Acts from another viewpoint.

^{page 82 note 3} Cf. Lightfoot, J. B., St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1896), p. 123Google Scholar. J. J. Schmidt, (1784) appears to have been the first to propose the so-called ‘South Galatian Theory’; so Burton, E. D., Galatians (ICC: Edinburgh, 1921), p. xxivGoogle Scholar, and Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), p. 192.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 4} Acts xvi. 6. Ramsay, however, hotly contested that Luke was referring here to N. Galatia: see for example his St Paul the Traveller, pp. 210–12 and numerous articles in Exp. T. XXIV (1912–13)Google Scholar. Certainly such a journey as Luke records would, on a ‘North Galatian’ view, be a geographical oddity. It could of course be argued, e silentio, that Paul visited North Galatia at a time unrecorded by Luke.

^{page 82 note 5} Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 123 f.; a good summary is to be found in Parker, P., ‘Once More, Acts and Galatians’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 175–82Google Scholar. Beniot, P., ‘La deuxiéme visite de Saint Paul à Jéresalem’, Biblica XL (1959), 778–92Google Scholar, calls the parallel ‘véritable’: Ibid. p. 779.

^{page 82 note 6} Cf. Porter, J. R., ‘The “Apostolic Decree” and Paul's Second Visit to Jerusalem’, J.T.S. XLVII (1946), 169–74Google Scholar; and Ramsay's strictures on Lightfoot, in St Paul the Traveller, pp. 5–7.

^{page 83 note 1} It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the problems raised by the textual variants at Acts xii. 25 and their implications. See Dupont, J., ‘La mission de Paul “à Jérusalem” (Act. XII 25)’, Nov. T. 1 (1956), 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} Sanders, J. T., ‘Paul's “Autobiographcial” Statements in Galatians 1–2’, J.B.L. LXXXV (1966), 335–43Google Scholar, questions whether Paul is really concerned here with a strict chronology. ‘Had the situation been such that Paul could better have proved his apostleship by showing how many times he had been in Jerusalem, he would no doubt have been able to argue equally well in that vein’ (Ibid. p. 343). But while Sanders is right to stress the polemical basis of Gal. i f., he does not substantiate his claim that historical accuracy is consequently irrelevant to Paul. And even on this view, we are still left with the discrepancies noted above.

^{page 83 note 3} So Ramsay, , A Historical Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1900), pp. 1–10Google Scholar; cf. The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1894), pp. 13 f.Google Scholar; Burton, , Galatians, pp. xxi–xlivGoogle Scholar (Burton, however, identifies Gal. ii with Acts xv: cf. Ibid. pp. 115–17); Duncan, G. S., The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Moffatt Commentary) (London, 1934), pp. vii, xx–xxviGoogle Scholar; Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, K., The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1 (henceforth B.C.) (London, 1922–33)Google Scholar, IV, 128 (but cf. v, 234 f.) et al.; Sanders, J. N., ‘Peter and Paul in the Acts’, N.T.S. II (1955–1956), 133–43Google Scholar, calls this the ‘generally received opinion among writers’ (p. 136).

^{page 83 note 4} Op. cit. p. 115.

^{page 83 note 5} Cf. Gal. ii. 10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ίνα μνημονεύωμεν.

^{page 83 note 6} Thus Ramsay, Historical Commentary, pp. 280–5 (‘The Visits to Jerusalem’ and ‘The First Visit to Jerusalem’) does not refer to Acts ix at all except to identify it with Gal. i. 18. Lightfoot (Galatians, pp. 91 f.) and Duncan (Galatians, pp. 31 f.) attempt some correlation of details but fail to convince: Duncan explicitly acknowledges ‘undeniable discrepancies’ (Ibid. p. 32).

^{page 83 note 7} On this interpretation of εί μέ as including James among the apostles, See Burton ad loc. Luke never explicitly calls James and apostle.

^{page 84 note 1} Acts ix. 28 (RSV).

^{page 84 note 2} See IICor. xi. 23–33 for many events unrecorded by Luke.

^{page 84 note 3} Cf. έν ταλῖς άμέραις ταύταις (i. 15; vi. 1; ix. 27); ημέρας τινάς (ix. 19); ήμέραι ίκαναί (ix. 23); κατέκινον τόν καιρόν (xii. 1); &c.

^{page 84 note 4} On these cf. Cadbury, H. J., ‘The Summaries in Acts’, B.C. v, 392–402Google Scholar: ‘their placing seems to depend on the writer's sources and the scope of the information available’ (p. 392). Now does Luke attempt closely to co-ordinate different strands of his account: in viii–xi we have four narratives (viii. 4–40: Philip; ix. 1–31: Paul; ix. 31–xi. 18: Peter and Cornelius: xi. 19–26: general statement), each describing events subsequent to Stephen's Martyrdom, with no attempted chronological co-ordination.

^{page 84 note 5} This is not to deny, of course, that Luke selected from his sources only that material which he deemed relevant to his purpose.

^{page 84 note 6} And, indeed, of many other events in the aspostle's early Christian life.

^{page 84 note 7} On the relation between these passages see below, problem 1.

^{page 84 note 8} A less feasible proposal is the period recorded in Acts xiv. 27-xv. 2; as Peter is portrayed in Acts xv as opposing the circumcision-party.

^{page 84 note 9} Cadbury, H. J., ‘The Hellenists’, B.C. v, 59–74.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 10} ‘The three occurrences of Ελληνιοτοι “Acts vi. 1; ix. 29; xi. 19f.”…are perhaps to be understood as indicating in two cases “i.e. ix. 29; xi. 19 f.” the missionary approach of Jewish Christians like Paul…to non-Jews’ (74). Evidently, if Ελληνιοτής does not specifically refer sto the Jew, there is nothing in our text to determine whether those to whom Paul preached were Jews or gentiles.

^{page 85 note 1} The textual problems here are beyond the scope of this paper: see Cadbury, loc. cit. For the difficulties involved in so early a gentile mission, see below, problem 2.

^{page 85 note 2} Cf. Dupont, J., ‘Le salut des Gentils et la signification théologique du livre des Actes’ (N.T.S. VI (1959–1960), 132–55, 146–9)Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., ‘The Book of Acts as Source Material for Early Christianity’ (Studies in Luke–Acts (ed. Keck, L. E.Martyn, J. L.; New York, 1966), pp. 258–78), pp. 262Google Scholar f. Most commentators assume this without question.

^{page 85 note 3} See above p. 84 n. 4.

^{page 85 note 4} Cadbury, ‘The Hellenists’, pp. 65–8. On the question of a gentile mission before the conversion of Cornelius, see also Bruce, F. F., ‘Galatin Problems. 1. Autobiographical Data’ (B.J.R.L. LI (1968–69), 292–309), 298.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} So Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1951), p. 5Google Scholar. It is encouraging to note that Sanders wishes to argue for an even earlier dating (loc. cit. p. 137).

^{page 86 note 2} Assuming an inclusive system of reckoning, and taking the ‘fourteen years’ of Gal. ii. 1 as dating from Paul's coversion.

^{page 86 note 3} Paul's astonishment and evident surprise, expressed in this verse, over the entry of those perverting the gospel as something quite unprecedented, may be additional evidence of a date early in Paul's Ministry. Later he became well aware of this threat: cf. II Cor. ii. 17; Phil. iii. 18; Acts xx. 29 f.

^{page 86 note 4} This seems more feasible than the supposition that Paul's illness preceded his journey, which Guthrie, D., New Testament Introduction (London, /1968), p. 75Google Scholar, appears to espouse.

^{page 86 note 5} For instance, Laodiceia-Katakekaumens, on the main East-West trade route from Ephesus.

^{page 86 note 6} Evidently, this would mean that Galatians is the earliest surviving letter of Paul by several years. For a list of others who wish to date Galatians as the earliest Pauline letter, see Bruce, F. F., ‘Galatian Problems. 4. The Date of the Epistle’ (B.J.R.L. LIV (1971–1972), 250–67), 267Google Scholar n. 1. Bruce himself argues for an early date, though somewhat later than the one suggested here.

^{page 86 note 7} I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to Professor C. F. D. Moule and Dr C. J. Hemer, both of whom read and commented on earlier drafts of this article.